The disposition that Nicholas brought to the role of Tsar (he was incredibly close to his family) led to huge flaws in his leadership skills. He would rather spend time with family than deal with any government matters, often leaving his ministers in control to make decisions. Nicholas was inexperienced and easily influenced, and lacked the authority to lead effectively, especially given the unstable social and economic nature of the time, such as the Lena Goldfields incident of 1912, and the bread riots in the cities, mainly Petrograd in 1917. Possibly the worst mistake that the Tsar made was appointing himself Commander in Chief of the Russian military in 1915, as he became personally responsible for any defeat in World War One. Since Russia performed poorly against nations like Germany, the people of Russia felt let down, and all sense of pride was lost.
Nicholas II was the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and his own arrogance and incompetence was a key factor in what led him to that title. His decision to maintain an autocratic government, fight in the Russo-Japanese war, and, ultimately, drag Russia into World War I, proved he was not fit to rule, and his actions led to the destruction of his dynasty. In these ways, Nicholas II, while faced with many problems, may have survived had he not ruled the way he did. Nicholas II was an implacable autocrat, and his fear of change alienated the Russian people from their leader. When Nicholas was young, he witnessed his grandfather, Alexander II, being assassinated by terrorists.
How far was Nicholas II responsible for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917? While Nicholas II was a major factor in the fall of the Romanovs there were other reasons such as the removal of the Dumas and him losing the support of the armed forces. Nicholas II became commander in chief of the army during world war one and in doing so left his wife Alexandra to rule the country. The fact that he had let someone so inexperienced take control angered many people due to the Tsar not leaving someone more experienced to rule and also due to her being unpopular as a result of her German nationality. Alexandra appointed Rasputin, who had saved her sons life, as her personal adviser.
Theme: Assess the view that throughout 1855-1964, Russian rulers opposed change. To assess this view it is important to consider a number of areas including the role of opposition, and backwardness and poor state of the country. Trotsky described war as a ‘locomotive of change’ and Russian involvement in war throughout the period meant that this was very much the case. Russian rulers were also to some degree reluctant reformers who were opposed to change as most changes throughout the period were forced upon them and were usually followed with restrictions, such as the Fundamental Laws reducing the impact of the Duma. This was probably due to their authoritarian ideology.
Tsar Nicholas II, who came into power in 1894, was one of the main reasons revolution occurred. He was a harsh and weak ruler. He did not keep promises made to increase personal freedoms and paid no attention to the Duma. The Russian Economy was bankrupt because of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. This war with Japan shook national confidence in their progress and the rule of the Tsar.
Causes of the Russian Revolution, Feb 1917 With a complex dynamic such as that of 1917 Russia there cannot be one single cause, we must examine whether it was the long term, medium term or short term causes that was the biggest catalyst in causing the revolution. The Tsarist Autocratic system had failed to industrialize Russia and prevented it from becoming a major European power. In 1905 the Russian people were not happy with every aspect of their life, which caused social unrest leading to a year of “revolution”. The war was not going well for Russia and with the Tsar in charge of the army, leaving the Tsarina to rule at home matters were only made worse. The War also had massive social and economic impacts on Russia that resulted in a strike that ended with a revolution.
Rachel Kay How accurate is it to say Frederick William IV was responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament? The Frankfurt Parliament was established to create freedom of press, German citizenship for all, fair taxation, equality of political rights and to create a unified Germany. However, countries like Austria greatly opposed it. Frederick William IV could be seen as responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament because he refused to accept any form of leadership and made it clear he distrusted the ‘gentlemen of Frankfurt’. However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions.
There were many factors in the survival of Tsarist rule from 1881 – 1905. The divisions among it's opponents played a part, as it meant that Tsarist opposition had no common goals, and couldn't work together to achieve it. The October Manifesto is another factor, it split up Nicholas' opposition even further by dividing the Liberals into two groups. Pobedonostsev & his repressive policies played a large part in the Survival of Tsarist autocracy, as he was able to keep the people down, not giving them enough ground to start a successful revolution. Lastly, Russia's backward society is one of the main reasons Nicholas II survived after 1905.
As long as the tsar had his army he was unconquerable. For fighting in the First World War the tsar had to pay a high price for his army: Many soldiers got killed and the others soldiers were disappointed in the tsar and joined the group of the supporters of a revolution. During his absence in Russia, for he was taking the role as a general in the army, rumors spread that the tsarina, the tsar’s wife, had an affair with Rasputin, a mysterious man who was playing an important role in the royal family, and that Rasputin was involved in important political actions. For the Russian people it was antipathy. The power of the tsar collapsed and a man named Vladimir Ilich Lenin received the attention of the Russian people.
Lenin described Trotsky as “...personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C...’ However, Trotsky also had weaknesses and made mistakes that Stalin was able to use to his advantage. To some Trotsky came across as an arrogant character and lacked support in critical areas of the party. He was also seen as an ‘outsider’ due to his background and past. The biggest mistakes that Trotsky made where a result of his poor judgement. Trotsky underestimated Stalin and what he was capable of (creating a triumvirate with Zinoviev and Kamenev, using this alliance to defeat him).